Cyclists win police court battle!



Huge wrote:
> On 2006-07-02, Al C-F <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>JNugent wrote:
>>:
>>[Boateng]
>>
>>>...who seems not to understand how law works (which is odd).
>>
>>>Boateng
>>>knows that - he's a lawyer by trade.
>>
>>And JNugent's qualification in this matter is that of being an officious
>>bystander.
>
>
> Ad hominem.

Legal construct.

>
> It's *got* to be the heat and the polystyrene crash helmets.
>
>

You know so little.
 
Huge wrote:
> On 2006-07-02, Al C-F <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>>The perception that the roads are too dangerous is due to the careless
>>and inconsiderate manner in which some motorists behave around cyclists.
>
>
> <cyclist>
> I always take great care near cyclists. They are entitled to their wobble.
> Ergo, since *I* take great care, all motorists take great care.
> </cyclist>
>
>
>
>

Interesting thought, though I think it's generally accepted that there
are yobs who are motorists and yobs who are cyclists.
 
Brimstone wrote:
> > Here on Earth, it is different. When I arrive at a red traffic light
> > in a motor vehicle, I stop irrespective of who may or may not already
> > be there.
>
> You do, I've no doubt. But you've also agreed that some car driver's don't.

Some car drivers don't, some car drivers are murderers too. Some are
politicians. Some are (and I'm sorry to say this), LAWYERS!

(I watched an Angel episode this weekend, there were 2 vampires in a
room with 20 lawyers. I felt sorry for the vampires hohoho)

A case where a car comes to a stop at a red light, then moves off
through the light, are minimal. Not the case with cyclists.

A case where a car comes to a red light that has been on for more than
10 seconds, and traffic is progressing across the junction, and the car
forces its way through is minimal (I've never seen it happen). Not the
case with cyclists.

All in my experience, I doubt there's been any survey that specific.
 
In news:[email protected],
Paul Weaver said:
> Brimstone wrote:
>>> Here on Earth, it is different. When I arrive at a red traffic light
>>> in a motor vehicle, I stop irrespective of who may or may not
>>> already be there.
>>
>> You do, I've no doubt. But you've also agreed that some car driver's
>> don't.
>
> Some car drivers don't, some car drivers are murderers too. Some are
> politicians. Some are (and I'm sorry to say this), LAWYERS!
>
> (I watched an Angel episode this weekend, there were 2 vampires in a
> room with 20 lawyers. I felt sorry for the vampires hohoho)
>
> A case where a car comes to a stop at a red light, then moves off
> through the light, are minimal. Not the case with cyclists.
>
> A case where a car comes to a red light that has been on for more than
> 10 seconds, and traffic is progressing across the junction, and the
> car forces its way through is minimal (I've never seen it happen).
> Not the case with cyclists.
>
> All in my experience, I doubt there's been any survey that specific.

But have you ever been at a junction when the lights turn red and a number
of cars ignore the red light and continue across the junction?
 
["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.]
On 3 Jul 2006 07:43:44 GMT, Huge <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2006-07-02, Brimstone <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In news:[email protected],
> > JNugent said:
> >> Steve Firth wrote:
> >>
> >>> I support the prosecution of any motorist who drives along the
> >>> pavement. I support the prosecution of any cyclist who rides along
> >>> the pavement. I support the prosecution of any motorist who runs a red
> >>> light.
> >>> I support the prosecution of any cyclist who runs a red light.
> >>> Go on, try and make out that this is somehow unjust.
> >>
> >> That is my position also.
> >>
> >> It *ought* to be everyone's position.
> >>
> >> But is it?
> >
> > The number of motoring
>
> To quoque. Irrelevant.

Wow, you actually went to the bother of misleadingly trimming a post
in such a way as to misrepresent what someone said in order to get in
your favourite accusation. I'm impressed you went to the bother.

It wasn't tu quoque. He didn't claim that the number of motoring
offences justifies anything on the part of cyclists. I know that if
he had, that would have been a fallacy, but since he didn't, it
wasn't.

In fact, he didn't claim the number of motoring offences justifies
anything, merely that it demonstartes that the stated opinion is not
held by everyone. This is true, and is not fallacious.

The question is, why do you bother? Why is it that whenever anyone
says anything remotely positive about cyclists and even only
indirectly negative about motorists, you start hopping up and down and
shrieking 'tu quoque'? I'm sure everyone's got the message about how
clever you are - you know some foreign words. Spoils it a bit that
you use them when they don't apply, but very impressive none-the-less.

What is the point?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
 
On 2006-07-03, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>

> The question is, why do you bother?

Because I intensely dislike liars and hypocrites.

> Why is it that whenever anyone
> says anything remotely positive about cyclists and even only
> indirectly negative about motorists, you start hopping up and down and
> shrieking 'tu quoque'?

Untrue. All I care about is the constant assertion that it is OK for
cyclists to ignore the law because motorists do. It isn't. End of
debate.

> I'm sure everyone's got the message about how
> clever you are - you know some foreign words.

Sigh. So, your response to one logical fallacy, and that's its name,
like it or not, is *another* logical fallacy - ad hominem this time.

> Spoils it a bit that
> you use them when they don't apply,

And that's just plain wrong.

but very impressive none-the-less.
>
> What is the point?

Stopping cyclists from lying.

(Stop altering the newsgroups line without saying so.)


--
"Other people are not your property."
[email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]
 
On 2006-07-03, Brimstone <[email protected]> wrote:
> In news:[email protected],
> Ian Smith said:
>
>> The question is, why do you bother? Why is it that whenever anyone
>> says anything remotely positive about cyclists and even only
>> indirectly negative about motorists, you start hopping up and down and
>> shrieking 'tu quoque'? I'm sure everyone's got the message about how
>> clever you are - you know some foreign words. Spoils it a bit that
>> you use them when they don't apply, but very impressive none-the-less.
>>
>> What is the point?
>
> Self-aggrandisement

Ad hominem & PKB.

Kewl, so few words, so much error.

Actually, it's entertainment. Watching cyclists knees jerking
holds a certain morbid fascination.

--
"Other people are not your property."
[email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]
 
On 2006-07-03, Clive George <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Huge" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Actually, it's entertainment. Watching cyclists knees jerking
>> holds a certain morbid fascination.
>
> Aren't you a cyclist?

An interesting question. I own a bicycle, but I only ever use it
to cycle round race courses I've not competed at before (aka
"walking the course" so I would say, no, I am not a cyclist.

--
"Other people are not your property."
[email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]
 
"Huge" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 2006-07-03, Clive George <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Huge" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> Actually, it's entertainment. Watching cyclists knees jerking
>>> holds a certain morbid fascination.
>>
>> Aren't you a cyclist?
>
> An interesting question. I own a bicycle, but I only ever use it
> to cycle round race courses I've not competed at before (aka
> "walking the course" so I would say, no, I am not a cyclist.

Didn't you use it to get to the station sometimes?

Anyway you use a bike, therefore you are a cyclist. Maybe not a keen one,
maybe not a regular one, but you are one nonetheless.

(which flavour race course?)

clive
 
Brimstone wrote:
> In news:[email protected],
> JNugent said:
>
>>Brimstone wrote:
>>
>>>In news:[email protected],
>>>JNugent said:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Brimstone wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In news:[email protected],
>>>>>JNugent said:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I accept that there is (probably) no direct intention to harm
>>>>>>others, but there is a recklessness - and a lack of concern - as
>>>>>>to whether others are harmed.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>YAASJAICMFP
>>>>
>>>>Society of Jesus member?
>>>>
>>>>Wrong (but in a way, close).
>>
>>>No, Sun Journalist.
>>
>>Is The Sun concerned about the problem of lawless cyclists (I have to
>>ask you since you obviously read it)?
>>
>>If so, I might revise upwards my opinion of that publication.
>
>
> No, it's main purpose in life is scaremongering, and corrupting the minds of
> impressionable people.

Is that why you read it?
 
On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 08:35:49 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:

>>>Here on Earth, it is different. When I arrive at a red traffic light in a
>>>motor vehicle, I stop irrespective of who may or may not already be there.
>
>> Perhaps it's time you dusted off that notebook to get some of those
>> hard facts you so deride.
>
>I think I'll leave it up to you to dig it out of whichever pocket of your
>anorak you keep it in.

Thank you for confirming what we already knew. You have no interest
in facts - just perceptions.
 
iiiiDougiiii wrote:
> Steve Firth wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 06:53:47 +0100, Tom Crispin wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 01:25:38 +0100, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>So in the same situations, it's OK to ride a motorcycle or car down the
>>>>pavement?
>>>
>>>Unless the signage allows, no.
>>>
>>>It's not OK to ride a bike on the footway unless the signage allows,
>>>however, it is a far lesser crime than to drive a motor vehicle of the
>>>footway. Indeed, in most cases I would describe it as a petty
>>>nuisance rather than a crime, and in the special case of young
>>>children, morally acceptable.
>>
>>Thanks for demonstrating that your argument is founded entirely on
>>hypocrisy.
>
>
> You obviously do not know the meaning of the word 'hypocrisy'.

I dunno about him, but I'm never sure how to spell it - it always looks wrong.
 
In news:p[email protected],
JNugent said:
> Brimstone wrote:

>> No, it's main purpose in life is scaremongering, and corrupting the
>> minds of impressionable people.
>
> Is that why you read it?

An interesting assertion given that there is no evidence to even spark the
thought let alone substantiate it.
 
In article <[email protected]>, David Hansen
says...
> On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 21:56:08 +0100 someone who may be JNugent
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
> >I am talking of footways, such as exist in ordinary streets in towns, not
> >of "shared paths".
>
> I have already indicated that there is at least one place in the UK
> where cyclists are instructed to "use the footway" by signs erected
> by the council.
>
TO WALK ACROSS INSTEAD OF TRYING TO RIDE ACROSS A BUSY ROAD. But I
wouldn't expect a lycra lout to have the intelligence to work that out.


--
Conor
Sig under construction. Please check back when Duke Nukem Forever ships
and/or Windows Vista is released.

Cashback on online purchases:
http://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/Conor/ref/index.htm
 
On 3 Jul 2006 07:46:44 GMT, Huge <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Try Central London. You'd be hard pressed to find a couple of law-abiding
>> cyclists per day.
>
>It's utterly irrelevant, anyway. Cyclists seem welded to this argument
>that because other people break the law, it's OK for them to do so, also.

No. We look at the comparative risks, gather *real* data when we can
and look at the reasons why some cyclists my pass lights on red or use
the footway.

>I guess that's because they know, in their heart of hearts, that you and
>I are perfectly correct; the vast majority of cyclists routinely break
>the law all the time.

No. Some cyclists break the law some of the time.

Unfortunately, at my local major junction with ASLs, cyclists turning
left on red are almost as common at motorists ASL infringments. The
police seem to ignore both annoyances equally.
 
In article <[email protected]>, Tony
Raven says...

> Which brings us back to the main point which is there are people on
> bikes and people in cars and a proportion of both break the law.
> However the consequences of the latter's transgression are many times
> greater and more serious than the former.
>
Nearly saw the ultimate in poetic justice today. Two lycra louts riding
towards each other on a narrow pavement. They met at a pedestrian
crossing so had a wall on one side and railings on the other giving
them nowhere to go. They only just stopped before colliding.

--
Conor
Sig under construction. Please check back when Duke Nukem Forever ships
and/or Windows Vista is released.

Cashback on online purchases:
http://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/Conor/ref/index.htm
 
In article <[email protected]>, Tony
Raven says...
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > So the group of cyclists I was driving behind in a 30MPH area that
> > where steadily pulling away from me where perfectly legal then !!!!.
>
> Absolutely even if you had been exceeding 30mph at the time.
>
Racing on the Public Highway is illegal yet this weekend, I saw dozens
of lycra louts doing just that.


--
Conor
Sig under construction. Please check back when Duke Nukem Forever ships
and/or Windows Vista is released.

Cashback on online purchases:
http://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/Conor/ref/index.htm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Oxford cyclists win again
Replies
20
Views
1K
UK and Europe
Andrew Chadwick
A
C
Oxford cyclists win again
Replies
20
Views
851
UK and Europe
Andrew Chadwick
A
Carlo Pancaldi
Shrine Of Madonna Del Ghisallo - The Patroness Of Cyclists
Replies
0
Views
2K
UK and Europe
Carlo Pancaldi
Carlo Pancaldi
Starfish
Calling all spinners & cyclists! Take on a 24 or 12 hour challenge!
Replies
0
Views
1K
UK and Europe
Starfish
Starfish
Tetiana
Help of cyclists from France and Austria needed!
Replies
0
Views
1K
UK and Europe
Tetiana
Tetiana
Top Bottom Back